FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Harad

Joined: May 11, 2014

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 15:19

You are playing a coach of inferior coaching quality. They will bring an unknown team. Your team will be of the same TV. If you absolutely had to win a ONE OFF game, which race would you bring?

I appreciate there will be different answers for different TVs and it's hard without knowing the constituents of the team.

The root of my question is that I found myself wondering which races have the least requirement for luck. Sure, some teams can be devastating when averaged across a lot of games, but if the dice don't go for them you can find yourselves beaten by any coach (obviously true for any team, but I feel it is more the case for some than others).

If you knew you had the coaching advantage which team would you bring?

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 15:22

Been there, done that, easy choice. Chaos Dwarves. Lots of Tackle, but not dependent on Tackle. Fast and slow, has answers to any threat.

bghandras

Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 15:32

Drarf and Norse also qualifies. Mass block eliminates most of the luck that you do. With that said you CANT control the opponents actions, and he will very well increase the luck factor if he wishes so.
He can foul, do risky things, and they may work. So I don't think the right question is to limit the luck, but to maximize your chance. So pick a race which is the best in your hands. All races and builds have bad matchups, so you cant even eliminate that.

_________________

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 15:48

Inferior coach? Wood elves, Undead, Lizardmen.

But the question lacks one very important part: what TV are we talking about. Different races are at their best at different TVs.

If I couldn't know in advance, and had to choose the race before the TV is known...I'd probably say undead or woodies. Solid choice from 1000 to 2000.

I agree that mass block is important to minimize luck, but AG4 across the board goes a LONG way to ruin an inferior coach's day.

_________________

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 15:52

At tv 1000: Orcs, Undead. Probably Orcs.

At tv 1300: Woodies, Unded

At tv 1600: Woodies

_________________

DukeTyrion

Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 15:55

Rookie team, Orcs or Dwarves.

Harad

Joined: May 11, 2014

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 15:58

Interesting Jan, my experience would say quite differently. I think low AV is a recipe for potential slip ups. Having more players on the pitch can be a very significant leveller in terms of ability. Sure woodies can be great but every now and then all the players hurry off to the casualty box and you can easily get yourself owned by coaches quite a lot worse.

Shades_SteelFist

Joined: Sep 11, 2008

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 15:58

Id go Norse against an inferior coach, almost everything has Block and frenzy can be great if not defended against properly.

_________________
Nuffle is cruel but we love him still

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 16:13

Harad wrote:

Interesting Jan, my experience would say quite differently. I think low AV is a recipe for potential slip ups. Having more players on the pitch can be a very significant leveller in terms of ability. Sure woodies can be great but every now and then all the players hurry off to the casualty box and you can easily get yourself owned by coaches quite a lot worse.

Woodies and Undead have the best win percentages. And that takes everything into consideration, even the odd game where you're the punchingball.

Just for the sake of it: the Lutece Cup has currently six teams at 5/0/0:
one is my lizardmen - I got lucky.
The others are:
2 woodies
1 high elf
1 elf
1 amazon.

Another example: The Road to NAF tournament:
The first 20 positions were held by:
Wood Elf - 5
Undead - 4
Dark Elf - 3
Amazon - 3
Dwarf - 2
Norse - 2
Orc- 1

Those are magic healing tournaments at low tv. Elves get better at winning as the tv goes up.

It seems to me that mobility beats resilience in terms of field control.
...but I've been wrong quite a few times in my life Very Happy

_________________

Last edited by JanMattys on %b %05, %2015 - %16:%May; edited 1 time in total

Kam

Joined: Nov 06, 2012

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 16:23

Against an "inferior" coach, I would try to minimize the luck factor, especially on the Casualty rolls, and therefore would go for high AV teams. I wouldn't go for elves either not to be tempted to roll too many dice. Among the non-elvish, high AV teams, Orcs are the more forgiving IMHO, so that would be my pick.

EDIT - But above all, I would go for a race I know and win games with. Wink

_________________
GLN 17 is out!

Harad

Joined: May 11, 2014

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 16:30

Yes Jan I absolutely agree that at some TVs they have better overall win percentages but as you say that takes in all possible match ups in terms of coaches and I would argue that elves are great for getting wins against better coaches. Essentially I am arguing that lower av teams often have more upside (can be great) and more downside (can be terrible) but to beat a weaker coach reliably you want something with less variability.

It would be fascinating to see the stats based on how relatively good the coaches were.

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 16:33

It's elfs. Any elfs.

There's really people who think that in a one off game you'd want dwarfs? Or Norse?

Seriously it's elfs at any TV. AG4+ blodge, that is what wins games. What wins seasons is something else, but for one game?

Elfs.

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 16:40

Harad wrote:

Yes Jan I absolutely agree that at some TVs they have better overall win percentages but as you say that takes in all possible match ups in terms of coaches and I would argue that elves are great for getting wins against better coaches. Essentially I am arguing that lower av teams often have more upside (can be great) and more downside (can be terrible) but to beat a weaker coach reliably you want something with less variability.

IMO, nope.

If I can beat a better coach with elves, then an inferior coach stands an even worse chance. It makes no sense to say that the team that gives me the best chances against a superior opponent won't give me the best chances against an inferior one.

Low av can lose games. True. But so can low ma, if your opponent rolls a blitz, or gets a couple lucky dodges, or handoffs in a tz and runs for it and all you have to chase him is a ma4 blocker.

If elves are the best tools for the job against a pro, they will be a true nightmare nine times out of ten against a less skilled opponent.

In terms of probability you want the team more likely to win. Orcs and Dorfs are very reliable at tying games. Elves are very very reliable at winning them.

The only thing that I might concede you is that at very low tv elves have too few rerolls. That hurts, that's why I wrote orcs or undead. But as soon as the elves get to 3 rrs, they are the no-brainer choice imho.

_________________

JimmyFantastic

Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 16:48

Yeah I would say to not lose Orcs or Undead but to win Woodies.

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!

Harad

Joined: May 11, 2014

Posted: May 05, 2015 - 16:48

To illustrate my point, a hypothetical example.

I play a coach who is much worse than me with elves 10 times, I win say 8 and lose 2.
I play a coach who is much better than me with elves 10 times, I win 2 and lose 8.
I play a coach who is much worse than me with dwarves 10 times, I win say 9 and lose 1.
I play a coach who is much better than me with dwarves 10 times, I win say 1 and lost 9.

The dwarves are a more reliable win against a weaker coach. None of this has anything to do with their overall win percentages (both are 50% in the example) but to do with the distribution.

I think your arguments are good ones (particularly about drawing), I'm just trying to squeeze another angle out.